Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)

This remake of John Carpenter’s 1976 film would’ve had to do something very special in order to come close to the innovation and originality of its source material. Unsurprisingly, the new version is absolutely average and ultimately empty.

Following the pattern set by the recent Dawn of the Dead remake, producers chose an up-and-coming director to helm a cult classic re-imagining. However, unlike Dawn, this director fails miserably.

The film begins promisingly, with an interesting drug sting, but quickly devolves into cliché and formula. The cast, with talented actors such as Laurence Fishburne and Gabriel Byrne, is wasted on a weak script. Ethan Hawke tries to act haunted and tortured but simply comes off as whinging. The only interesting performance comes from John Leguizamo as a strung-out, conspiracy-spouting junkie (an albeit familiar character). Laurence Fishburne seems lost, essentially playing an urban Morpheus. If he isn’t careful he’ll slide into Jack Nicholson territory, simply playing himself in role after role.

The visual style of the film is too obvious, too flashy. Some of the camerawork used is disorienting and unnecessary, including an expensive CGI zoom out that draws far too much attention to itself. There is one interesting sequence however, though it’s far too short: a quick three-shot track right, showing the criminals paired off with the cops.

The inclusion of hard motives and complex motivations ironically seems to detract from the film. The original version was so interesting because of the seemingly random nature of the siege, almost as if it were a group of mindless animals attacking rather than a vicious gang. Normally adding deeper characterisations enhances a film, but here it seems forced and out of place. Is this film a drama or an action/thriller? The director doesn’t seem to know.

Assault on Precinct 13 had great potential, but ultimately became just another muddled actioner from Hollywood.

Creep (2004)

Horror is created through the establishment and maintenance of tension and dread. Some of the most interesting horror films are those with the simplest of setups: a group of teenagers stumble across a murderous backwoods family; the recently dead arise and attack the living; a videotape will kill you seven days after viewing it. By setting the film in a familiar context, the viewer more easily identifies with the characters and therefore more acutely shares their terror. For the first half of the film, Creep is eerie, claustrophobic and frightening. Unfortunately, this tense mood is broken and the film never quite recovers.

Writer/director Christopher Smith does a good job creating a genuinely frightening situation, drawing on many common modern nightmares. Hinting rather than showing, the first half of the film is all innuendo, menacing shadows and unfocused movement. Smith also chooses the unusual practise of showing the actions of all characters, not just the protagonist. Usually a horror film would leave a character to his or her hidden fate, to be revealed later for maximum shock; Smith shows what happens when a group splits up. This makes for a refreshing change of perspective and helps the film stand apart from the rest of the genre.

However, almost all of the suspense and tension is replaced by gore and depravity in the latter half of the film. Creep stumbles into the common trap of horror films: removing the horror from the viewer’s mind and putting it onscreen. By revealing too much, the film loses much of its effectiveness.

A good effort, but fails to completely deliver on the setup.